St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-11-03

dence on the trial of the case. Special refer
ence is made in this connection to the letter
of Most about which Spies was cross-ex-
amined but we have not been referred to
any part of the record in which it appears
that objection was made to the use of the
evidence on that account, and upon this
point the supreme court of the state in that
part of its opinion which has been printed
with this motion remarks as follows: 1.-THE
objection that the letter was obtained from
the defendant by an unlawful seizure is
made for the first time in this court 1t was
not made on the trial in the court below
Such an objection as this, which is not sug-
gested by The nature of the offered evidence,
but depends upon the proof OF an outside
fact, should have been made on the trial."
The defense should have proved that the
Most letter was one of the letters illegally
seized by the police, and should then have
moved to exclude or oppose its admission on
the ground that it was obtained by such
illegal seizure. This was not done, and there
fore we can not consider the constitutional
question supposed to be involved. Even
though the court was wrong in saying that 1t
did not appear that the Most letter was one
of the papers illegally seized, it still remains
uncontradicted that no objection was made
in the trial court to its admission on that ac-
count. To give us jurisdiction under section
109 of the revised statutes, because OF the
denial by state court of any title, right, priv
ilege or immunity claimed under the consti-
tuition, or any treaty or statute of the United
II
privilege or immunity
Specially Set Up
or claimed at the proper time and in the proper
way. To be renewable, the decision must be
against the right so set up or claimed. AS
the supreme court of the state was reviewing
the decision Of the trial court to make the
question renewable here, it must appear that
the claim was made in that court because the
supreme court was only authorized to review
the judgment of that court for errors COM
mitted there, and we can do nothing more.
This is not, as seems to be supposed by one
OF the counsel for the petitioners, question
of the waiver of a right under the constitu-
ton, laws or treaties of the United States, but
question of claim. If not set up or claimed
in the proper court below the Judgment of
the state court in the action is conclusive so
far as the right Of review here is concerned.
The question whether the letter. il obtained
as claimed, would have been competent evil
dence is not before u.s. and therefore no
foundation is laid under this objection for
the exercise Of our jurisdiction. As to the
suggestion by counsel for the petitioners,
Sp es and Fielden, that Spies having been
born in Germany and Fielden in Great Brit
ain, and have been denied by the decision of
the court below-rights guaranteed to them
by treaties between the United States and
their respective countries-it is sufficient to
say that no such questions were made and
decided in either Of the courts telow, and
they cannot be raised in this court for the
first time. We have not been referred to any
treaty, neither are we aware OF any, under
which such question could be raised. Being
OF the opinion, therefore, that the federal
questions presented by the counsel for the
petitioners, and which they say they desire
to argue, are not in fact involved in the de-
termination of the case as it appears on the
face of the record, we deny the writ. The
decision Of the court is unanimous.